The minimal important difference of the ICU mobility scale

被引:21
|
作者
Tipping, Claire J. [1 ,2 ]
Holland, Anne E. [2 ,3 ]
Harrold, Meg [4 ]
Crawford, Tom [5 ]
Halliburton, Nick [6 ]
Hodgson, Carol L. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Monash Univ, Australian & New Zealand Intens Care Res Ctr, Dept Epidemiol & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[2] Alfred Hosp, Dept Physiotherapy, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[3] La Trobe Univ, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[4] Curtin Univ, Facil Hlth Sci, Perth, WA, Australia
[5] Univ Hosp Geelong, Dept Physiotherapy, Geelong, Vic, Australia
[6] Ballarat Base Hosp, Dept Physiotherapy, Ballarat, Vic, Australia
来源
HEART & LUNG | 2018年 / 47卷 / 05期
关键词
Intensive care unit; Outcome measures; Clinimetric properties; ICU mobility scale; Rehabilitation; CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE-OXYGENATION; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; PHYSICAL FUNCTION; HEALTH-STATUS; RESPONSIVENESS; MEANINGFUL; TRANSPLANTATION; MOBILIZATION; AUSTRALIA;
D O I
10.1016/j.hrtlng.2018.07.009
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: The intensive care unit mobility scale (IMS) is reliable, valid and responsive. Establishing the minimal important difference (MID) of the IMS is important in order to detect clinically significant changes in mobilization. Objective: To calculate the MID of the IMS in intensive care unit patients. Methods: Prospective multi center observational study. The IMS was collected from admission and discharge physiotherapy assessments. To calculate the MID we used; anchor based methods (global rating of change) and two distribution-based methods (standard error of the mean and effect size). Results: We enrolled 184 adult patients; mean age 62.0 years, surgical, trauma, and medical. Anchor based methods gave a MID of 3 with area under the curve 0.94 (95% CI 0.89-0.97). The two distribution based methods gave a MID between 0.89 and 1.40. Conclusion: These data increase our understanding of the clinimetric properties of the IMS, improving its utility for clinical practice and research. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:497 / 501
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Minimal Important Difference For The Visual Analogue Scale For Dyspnoea
    Mishra, E. K.
    Corcoran, J.
    Hallifax, R.
    Rahman, N. M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2013, 187
  • [2] The Wisconsin gait scale - The minimal clinically important difference
    Guzik, Agnieszka
    Druzbickia, Mariusz
    Wolan-Nieroda, Andzelina
    Przysada, Grzegorz
    Kwolek, Andrzej
    GAIT & POSTURE, 2019, 68 : 453 - 457
  • [3] Minimal important difference is important
    Shrier, Ian
    CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2016, 188 (06) : 451 - 451
  • [4] Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale
    Johnson, Miriam J.
    Currow, David C.
    CANCER, 2016, 122 (01) : 158 - 159
  • [5] The minimal clinically important difference of the Participation Measurement Scale in chronic stroke
    Kossi, Oyene
    Silva, Soraia M.
    Lena, Francesco
    Agbetou, Mendinatou
    Adoukonou, Thierry
    Feys, Peter
    SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, 2025, 81 (01)
  • [6] An Updated Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the QoR-15 Scale
    Myles, Paul S.
    Myles, Daniel B.
    ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2021, 135 (05) : 934 - 935
  • [7] MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE (MCID) FOR THE CMT PEDIATRIC SCALE (CMTPEDS)
    Cornett, Kayla
    Menezes, Manoj
    Donlevy, Gabrielle
    Estilow, Timothy
    McKay, Marnee
    Eichinger, Katy
    Shy, Rosemary
    Muntoni, Francesco
    Reilly, Mary
    Yum, Sabrina
    Moroni, Isabella
    Pareyson, Davide
    Finkel, Richard
    Herrmann, David
    Acsadi, Gyula
    Day, John
    Ramchandren, Sindhu
    Shy, Michael E.
    Burns, Joshua
    JOURNAL OF THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM, 2024, 29 : S192 - S192
  • [8] Validation of the minimal clinically important difference for modified activities assessment scale
    Neela, Niharika
    Olavarria, Oscar A.
    Rondon, Alexis P.
    Bernardi, Karla
    Shah, Puja
    Dhanani, Naila
    Lyons, Nicole
    Matta, Eduardo J.
    Hasapes, Joseph P.
    Liang, Mike K.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2022, 223 (04): : 770 - 773
  • [9] Reply to Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale
    Hui, David
    Bruera, Eduardo
    CANCER, 2016, 122 (01) : 159 - 160
  • [10] An Application of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference Test for the Diabetes Distress Scale
    Banks, J.
    Amspoker, A. B.
    Woodard, L.
    Naik, A. D.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY, 2023, 71 : S244 - S244